"This message gives something of the history behind why many evangelical churches switched from wine to grape juice, some 140 years ago. If the reason for switching then was unbiblical, then switching back is in keeping with the 'old paths'."
I applaud the preacher for wanting to reform the Lord's Supper, but I have to scratch my head somewhat to understand the theological logic behind his priorities. His church apparently celebrates communion once a month and has it a meeting separate to the normal gathered worship of the church when they do so (http://www.reformedbaptist.net), which you'd be hard pressed to argue that this is the historic practice of Christians, or that the reasons for the change to doing so make good theological sense. I have a paper in this area here: http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/3_TheLordsSupper_RK.pdf.
On the other hand, he's determined that standing for the "old paths" means taking a position on the specific degree of fermentation our Lord did or did not have in mind when he said γενηματος της αμπελου (fruit of the vine). Perhaps I should listen the sermon and this mystery will be resolved? It seems a curious set of priorities in the reformation of the Lord's Supper (which, you can see from my paper I *do* think is a priority) to me, to say the least.
I hope they also use only wine fermented from grapes grown from the same vineyards, and of the same stock as that used by the Lord and the disciples, and all drink from the same type of goblet as they used so they can remain truly faithful to the old paths.
That's not CR's logic. That was CR applying a reductio ad absurdum to the apparent logic of the sermon. If we're meant to retrospectively calculate how much fermentation had taken place in the "fruit of the vine" in the Last Supper in order to be really faithful, then why stop there?
All I can say to that, is that I think CR knew that you knew that we knew that you knew we'd do that, and I think you've missed the point that CR was applying a reductio ad absurdum to the reduction of his reductio ad absurdum that he anticipated you'd make and reduced it to absurdity in advance of you doing so.
"This message gives something of the history behind why many evangelical churches switched from wine to grape juice, some 140 years ago. If the reason for switching then was unbiblical, then switching back is in keeping with the 'old paths'."
ReplyDeleteI applaud the preacher for wanting to reform the Lord's Supper, but I have to scratch my head somewhat to understand the theological logic behind his priorities. His church apparently celebrates communion once a month and has it a meeting separate to the normal gathered worship of the church when they do so (http://www.reformedbaptist.net), which you'd be hard pressed to argue that this is the historic practice of Christians, or that the reasons for the change to doing so make good theological sense. I have a paper in this area here: http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/3_TheLordsSupper_RK.pdf.
On the other hand, he's determined that standing for the "old paths" means taking a position on the specific degree of fermentation our Lord did or did not have in mind when he said γενηματος της αμπελου (fruit of the vine). Perhaps I should listen the sermon and this mystery will be resolved? It seems a curious set of priorities in the reformation of the Lord's Supper (which, you can see from my paper I *do* think is a priority) to me, to say the least.
I hope they also use only wine fermented from grapes grown from the same vineyards, and of the same stock as that used by the Lord and the disciples, and all drink from the same type of goblet as they used so they can remain truly faithful to the old paths.
ReplyDeleteDo I smell an idol?
CR,
ReplyDeleteBy your logic we cannot immerse new believers in water if it is not done in the Jordan river.
That's not CR's logic. That was CR applying a reductio ad absurdum to the apparent logic of the sermon. If we're meant to retrospectively calculate how much fermentation had taken place in the "fruit of the vine" in the Last Supper in order to be really faithful, then why stop there?
DeleteExactly Alan and David.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI knew someone would think that. But if you thought through my point more carefully that is not what I was saying.
I was applying a reductio ad absurdum to his a reductio ad absurdum! I.e. He must also object to water as the element by which we must be immersed in.
All I can say to that, is that I think CR knew that you knew that we knew that you knew we'd do that, and I think you've missed the point that CR was applying a reductio ad absurdum to the reduction of his reductio ad absurdum that he anticipated you'd make and reduced it to absurdity in advance of you doing so.
DeleteAs long as it's earth water I don't object, but for future interplanetary Christian immersions, well, Houston we have a problem.
Delete